nowadays?
The wife of a Conservative councillor told police about an arsenal of handguns he kept at his sprawling country home in revenge for having to give him £180,000 in a divorce settlement, a court has heard.
...
Richard Scott, prosecuting, said that Mrs Meurice, who had remained at the couple's seven bedroom house, Redbrooks Wood, in Hythe, Kent, was cleaning when she found in a cupboard at the top of a wardrobe two pouches, each one containing firearms.
They included a silver revolver, two pistols, and a spy-style "tube gun" that resembled a pen. Mrs Meurice called the police, who when they visited Meurice's new home found a CS gas canister in his loft.
He's on trial for 8 counts of 'possessing illegal firearms', so in this case it seems seven firearms and a CS cannister is an 'arsenal'. Of course, this IS in (fG)Britain, so I guess it counts. I much prefer the words of Tam:
It's good to have goals. Mine is that, when they finally come after me for felony jaywalking or confuse my address with the crack house two blocks down, and in the aftermath spread all my stuff on bedsheets in the front yard, I want the kids on the intarw3bz gun boards to look at that junk-on-the-bunk display and say "Wow, that is an arsenal."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Well, it MIGHT explain some things...
Crotalus: If guns are an extension of a man's penis, does that mean that men who support gun control secretly want to have vaginas?
January 23, 4:24 PM
Of course, there's another problem:
Ned: According to Henry, my wife's gun is a penis extension. I guess that must make me a homosexual.
Do I get some sort of federal protection now that I am in a minority class?
January 23, 4:24 PM
Of course, there's another problem:
Ned: According to Henry, my wife's gun is a penis extension. I guess that must make me a homosexual.
Do I get some sort of federal protection now that I am in a minority class?
Actually, I'd rather be writing about guns and handloading and
knives and forging and whatever else than crooked politicians and "I want to be a slave" celebrities, but the pols and celebritutes affect our lives. So we have to talk about them, and pass around what they say and do so everybody possible knows about it. Right now I'm speaking of the celebs and their oath to The Lightbringer.
I read about this mess the other day. Just flat amazing. And scary. "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind." What the HELL is that? These clowns, a good many of them belittle the troops who swear to protect and defend the Constitution; they think(at least until now) that anyone who stands for the Pledge of Allegiance is a fool; but they swear 'to be a servant to our president'?!? No problem swearing to be a servant to a politician?
Damn.
I read about this mess the other day. Just flat amazing. And scary. "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind." What the HELL is that? These clowns, a good many of them belittle the troops who swear to protect and defend the Constitution; they think(at least until now) that anyone who stands for the Pledge of Allegiance is a fool; but they swear 'to be a servant to our president'?!? No problem swearing to be a servant to a politician?
Damn.
Yeah, I imagine Rush is loving it
just as much as President Obama and his buttmonkeys are hating it. Two reasons:
One is the obvious: Rush will pick up that ball and run with it, loudly. If Obama had to mention him at all, this was NOT the way to do it.
Second, this would seem to demonstrate that he seems to think that because he won the job interview, it means he gets what he wants. Right now. Don't you even think about arguing about it, let alone saying 'no'.
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.
"I will trump you on that."
Translation: "I won the election, and that means you do what I want."
Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.
The hell he wasn't; he was gloating AND threatening. Which brings us to this:
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
Translation: "Not only should you do what Pres. Obama says, and right now, but if you think the Evil Party is going to take major responsibility for this, you're nuts! We need Stupid Party members helping pass this so we've got cover, and can blame the problems on them later!"
Take being very picky, downright dumb at times, about refusing to answer questions from the media, add to that the entitlement mentality, stir in dumb comments like that about Limbaugh... I wonder if he really has any idea just how much trouble he's causing for himself?
One is the obvious: Rush will pick up that ball and run with it, loudly. If Obama had to mention him at all, this was NOT the way to do it.
Second, this would seem to demonstrate that he seems to think that because he won the job interview, it means he gets what he wants. Right now. Don't you even think about arguing about it, let alone saying 'no'.
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.
"I will trump you on that."
Translation: "I won the election, and that means you do what I want."
Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.
The hell he wasn't; he was gloating AND threatening. Which brings us to this:
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
Translation: "Not only should you do what Pres. Obama says, and right now, but if you think the Evil Party is going to take major responsibility for this, you're nuts! We need Stupid Party members helping pass this so we've got cover, and can blame the problems on them later!"
Take being very picky, downright dumb at times, about refusing to answer questions from the media, add to that the entitlement mentality, stir in dumb comments like that about Limbaugh... I wonder if he really has any idea just how much trouble he's causing for himself?
Some interesting stuff out there, starting with GFW/Lib squealing
in New York. The governor did indeed appoint Gillibrand to the Senate seat. Which is causing lots of whining and screaming, apparently the big reason being she's got a good rating from the NRA. Which, of course, is reason enough for people like McCarthy and the Kennedys and so forth to want her to take a long walk on a short pier. Not counting keeping a Kennedy from taking her 'rightful place', which seems to mean 'getting what she wants' to the worshippers.
But as hard as she works, she will always have to wonder if she was actually Gov. Paterson's second choice. After all, until Wednesday almost everyone in the state expected the job to go to Kennedy.
Well, duh. I think she knows that Paterson would have gained points with the Kennedys & Worshippers & Sycophants, Inc., for appointing her. It would also have painted him as someone willing to give a Senate seat for personal gain, and I don't know if he was too wild about that. I have no idea of all the infighting in that state on this, but I'm sure he decided the long-term gain of Gillibrand was worth it.
...There were some high points -- President Barack Obama called in the middle of Gillibrand's speech.
Gillibrand finished her remarks before she went to the side of the stage to take the call.
"He said, 'I look forward to working with you,'" Gillibrand said.
Snork. I bet he does. From what I've read he WANTED Kennedy in that chair, and he not only got someone else, it's someone who, on at least one issue, just might stand against him. I do like her priorities on this: whether she wanted to make the point that she's not at his beck & call or not, she finished what she was doing before taking the call. Which is as it should be.
Gillibrand's pro-gun stance hung over the event, but she said she was willing to work with people against gun violence.
'Hung over the event'. Translation: the nanny-state weenies are aghast that someone with such a view should be out in public, let alone in public office, and are already planning to intimidate her into changing, or getting her out of the office as soon as possible, with the Kossites already making plans. I wonder if it's occurred to them that she might be kind of popular in her district, and crapping on her might be kind of counterproductive?
Probably not. It would mean the peasants don't think like they should, and that's not acceptable.
We'll see how it goes with her. Should be interesting, if nothing else.
But as hard as she works, she will always have to wonder if she was actually Gov. Paterson's second choice. After all, until Wednesday almost everyone in the state expected the job to go to Kennedy.
Well, duh. I think she knows that Paterson would have gained points with the Kennedys & Worshippers & Sycophants, Inc., for appointing her. It would also have painted him as someone willing to give a Senate seat for personal gain, and I don't know if he was too wild about that. I have no idea of all the infighting in that state on this, but I'm sure he decided the long-term gain of Gillibrand was worth it.
...There were some high points -- President Barack Obama called in the middle of Gillibrand's speech.
Gillibrand finished her remarks before she went to the side of the stage to take the call.
"He said, 'I look forward to working with you,'" Gillibrand said.
Snork. I bet he does. From what I've read he WANTED Kennedy in that chair, and he not only got someone else, it's someone who, on at least one issue, just might stand against him. I do like her priorities on this: whether she wanted to make the point that she's not at his beck & call or not, she finished what she was doing before taking the call. Which is as it should be.
Gillibrand's pro-gun stance hung over the event, but she said she was willing to work with people against gun violence.
'Hung over the event'. Translation: the nanny-state weenies are aghast that someone with such a view should be out in public, let alone in public office, and are already planning to intimidate her into changing, or getting her out of the office as soon as possible, with the Kossites already making plans. I wonder if it's occurred to them that she might be kind of popular in her district, and crapping on her might be kind of counterproductive?
Probably not. It would mean the peasants don't think like they should, and that's not acceptable.
We'll see how it goes with her. Should be interesting, if nothing else.
And Hollyweird displays its true colors.
Again. From the linked post:
"The timing is unfortunate. For a story that has gone neglected for the best part of 60 years, this is hardly the ideal week to be extolling heroic Jewish resistance fighters. Ari Folman’s angst-laden nonfiction animated film, "Waltz With Bashir," is altogether more relevant."
Apparently, you're supposed to make sure Israel isn't doing something non-PC to Hamas & Co. before you release a movie about Jew being anything except helpless victims waiting to be saved.
Just wonderful. And it makes me more determined to subject myself to a theater to see this movie.
"The timing is unfortunate. For a story that has gone neglected for the best part of 60 years, this is hardly the ideal week to be extolling heroic Jewish resistance fighters. Ari Folman’s angst-laden nonfiction animated film, "Waltz With Bashir," is altogether more relevant."
Apparently, you're supposed to make sure Israel isn't doing something non-PC to Hamas & Co. before you release a movie about Jew being anything except helpless victims waiting to be saved.
Just wonderful. And it makes me more determined to subject myself to a theater to see this movie.
Friday, January 23, 2009
It may have started as a joke, but anymore 'EUnuchs'
just speaks to the facts.
...Even before Fitna was released early last year, Doekle Terpstra, a leading member of the Dutch establishment, called for mass rallies to protest the movie. Terpstra organized a coalition of political, business, academic, and religious leaders, the sole purpose of which was to try to freeze Wilders out of public debate. Dutch cities are riddled with terrorist cells and crowded with fundamentalist Muslims who cheered 9/11 and idolize Osama bin Laden, but for Terpstra and his political allies, the real problem was the one Member of Parliament who wouldn’t shut up. “Geert Wilders is evil,” pronounced Terpstra, “and evil has to be stopped.” Fortuyn, van Gogh, and Hirsi Ali had been stopped; now it was Wilders’s turn.
...Even before Fitna was released early last year, Doekle Terpstra, a leading member of the Dutch establishment, called for mass rallies to protest the movie. Terpstra organized a coalition of political, business, academic, and religious leaders, the sole purpose of which was to try to freeze Wilders out of public debate. Dutch cities are riddled with terrorist cells and crowded with fundamentalist Muslims who cheered 9/11 and idolize Osama bin Laden, but for Terpstra and his political allies, the real problem was the one Member of Parliament who wouldn’t shut up. “Geert Wilders is evil,” pronounced Terpstra, “and evil has to be stopped.” Fortuyn, van Gogh, and Hirsi Ali had been stopped; now it was Wilders’s turn.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Browning
What that man designed...
...A list of just his commercial successes is illuminating:
Single Shot Rifles:
Winchester 1885
Bolt-action Rifles:
Winchester 1900
Lever-action Rifles:
Winchester 1886
Winchester 1892
Winchester 1894
Winchester 1895
Slide-action Rifles:
Winchester 1890
Recoil-operated Semi-automatic Rifles:
Remington Model 8
Blowback-operated Semi-automatic Rifles:
Browning .22 Semiauto
Double-barrel Shotguns:
Browning Superposed
Lever-action Shotguns:
Winchester 1887
Slide-action Shotguns:
Winchester 1897
Remington Model 17 (later the Ithaca 37)
Stevens 520
Recoil-operated Semi-automatic Shotguns:
Browning Auto 5 / Remington Model 11
Blowback-operated Semi-automatic Pistols:
FN M1900
Colt 1903/1908 Pocket Hammerless
FN 1906 Vest Pocket/Colt 1908 Vest Pocket
FN 1910
Colt Woodsman
Recoil-operated Semi-automatic Pistols:
Colt 1902
Colt 1903 Pocket Hammer
U.S. M1911
FN G.P. 35
Gas-operated Machine Guns:
Colt M1895
U.S. M1918 BAR
Recoil-Operated Machine Guns:
U.S. M1917/M1919
U.S. M2 Heavy Machine Gun
Automatic Machine Cannon:
Colt-Browning 37mm
AND the ammunition for a number of them. Damn. Glad he was born here.
...A list of just his commercial successes is illuminating:
Single Shot Rifles:
Winchester 1885
Bolt-action Rifles:
Winchester 1900
Lever-action Rifles:
Winchester 1886
Winchester 1892
Winchester 1894
Winchester 1895
Slide-action Rifles:
Winchester 1890
Recoil-operated Semi-automatic Rifles:
Remington Model 8
Blowback-operated Semi-automatic Rifles:
Browning .22 Semiauto
Double-barrel Shotguns:
Browning Superposed
Lever-action Shotguns:
Winchester 1887
Slide-action Shotguns:
Winchester 1897
Remington Model 17 (later the Ithaca 37)
Stevens 520
Recoil-operated Semi-automatic Shotguns:
Browning Auto 5 / Remington Model 11
Blowback-operated Semi-automatic Pistols:
FN M1900
Colt 1903/1908 Pocket Hammerless
FN 1906 Vest Pocket/Colt 1908 Vest Pocket
FN 1910
Colt Woodsman
Recoil-operated Semi-automatic Pistols:
Colt 1902
Colt 1903 Pocket Hammer
U.S. M1911
FN G.P. 35
Gas-operated Machine Guns:
Colt M1895
U.S. M1918 BAR
Recoil-Operated Machine Guns:
U.S. M1917/M1919
U.S. M2 Heavy Machine Gun
Automatic Machine Cannon:
Colt-Browning 37mm
AND the ammunition for a number of them. Damn. Glad he was born here.
"Dear Sir, sorry 'bout that mess in your pants"
Don't know if this is true, but if it's not it ought to be:
"I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message. I'd like to apologize.
I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 .45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?
I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster.
I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know which ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.
So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry. Peace!
- Alex "
Sent to me by a friend
"I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message. I'd like to apologize.
I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 .45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?
I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster.
I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know which ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.
So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry. Peace!
- Alex "
Sent to me by a friend
It shouldn't surprise me,
but in a way it does.
For the first time in 56 years, a newly-inaugurated president has not attended the ball begun by President Eisenhower. 14 presidents later, a snub.
Go check it out over there- FORTY-EIGHT MoH recipients were in attendance. People- that's HALF of the recipients that are still alive, and darn well nearly all that are physically able to attend events.
For the first time in 56 years, a newly-inaugurated president has not attended the ball begun by President Eisenhower. 14 presidents later, a snub.
Go check it out over there- FORTY-EIGHT MoH recipients were in attendance. People- that's HALF of the recipients that are still alive, and darn well nearly all that are physically able to attend events.
Two things this morning:
First, apparently the governor of NY is wanting to name Rep. Kirsten Gillebrand(Evil Party) to the Senate to replace Clinton. And, due to her having a good rating from NRA, the gun-fearing wussies and nanny-state morons are out in force. Take a look at the comments; according to most of them it should be that gun-grabbing moron McCarthy because 'she's saving us from gun violence, and guns suck!'.
Second, The Obama went to the press room and someone asked him an actual question, which seems to have irritated him. Later words from someone: "Arrogant fool! Don't you know you only ask approved questions at approved times?"
Second, The Obama went to the press room and someone asked him an actual question, which seems to have irritated him. Later words from someone: "Arrogant fool! Don't you know you only ask approved questions at approved times?"
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Insty had a post on space weather,
specifically what big solar flares can do to power grids and other electronics. Which reminded me of this book, Flare, by Roger Zelazny and Thomas T. Thomas. Set in the near future, the Maunder Minimum has gone on for a long time, and the danger of solar storms has been mostly forgotten. And then sunspot activity starts back up, and things go to hell from there. Good read.
Back when I was dispatching, we had a couple of summers with high sunspot activity, and it played hell with radio communications; Florida Highway Patrol used the same frequencies we did, and at times the skip was so bad we could hear units in Florida better than we could hear our own thirty miles away. Couple of times someone relayed a message to a FL headquarters because the unit couldn't get through.
I have to note, after I mentioned the accuracy of the Mosin Nagant the other day Gerry said in comments(among other things):
I do however have a 1943 dated Ishevsk M91-30 which does have rifling and does shoot well. four or five rounds in quick succession, though and a hardwood bat is required to operate the bolt. I would really hate to have to use this gatepost in battle as it is an indifferently made example of a bad design. When I got it, it was arsenal new and unfired.
I call the M91-30 the Yugo of rifles, a bad design poorly done.
The old M-91's are a bad design very well made.
"The Yugo of rifles". Snork.
Back when I was dispatching, we had a couple of summers with high sunspot activity, and it played hell with radio communications; Florida Highway Patrol used the same frequencies we did, and at times the skip was so bad we could hear units in Florida better than we could hear our own thirty miles away. Couple of times someone relayed a message to a FL headquarters because the unit couldn't get through.
I have to note, after I mentioned the accuracy of the Mosin Nagant the other day Gerry said in comments(among other things):
I do however have a 1943 dated Ishevsk M91-30 which does have rifling and does shoot well. four or five rounds in quick succession, though and a hardwood bat is required to operate the bolt. I would really hate to have to use this gatepost in battle as it is an indifferently made example of a bad design. When I got it, it was arsenal new and unfired.
I call the M91-30 the Yugo of rifles, a bad design poorly done.
The old M-91's are a bad design very well made.
"The Yugo of rifles". Snork.
On a slightly calmer note,
Security Staff is doing much better today. I think she either ate something that REALLY disagreed with her, or caught some kind of bug. Happily, giving her the two meds isn't too bad; they pill's easy, the difficult one is the potassium supplement: it's a gel and apparently tastes awful, I have to get it on a spoon and into her mouth so she pretty much has to swallow it. The special food, however, she has no problem with. And I left some of her regular dry this morning, and she ate it, too. Moving much better, so I think she'll be ok.
In other news, I’d been looking around for 7.62x54r brass for a while. About six or eight months ago I’d bought 100 rounds of Wolf Gold(good ammo) both to try it out, and because that would give me some reloadable cases; at that time all I could find was Norma or Lapua which is, let’s say ‘pricey’. Later on I found that Graf & Sons carries Prvi brass, but they’ve been out of stock for at least the last two months, and the only other place I found that had affordable brass(Winchester) was also out of stock.
Yesterday I went to Grafs to check, clicked on ‘7.62x54r’, and the little note said “In stock”. I think I actually jumped a bit. Yes, I ordered some, right then; no telling how long it’ll last.
I think Prvi makes the brass- maybe the ammo- for Wolf Gold; they look identical and have the same headstamp; somebody told me they may also make the stuff sold under the Hotshot label. It’s good stuff, but does seem a bit stiff in the neck; it’s definitely good quality, but I’m wondering if, after one or two uses, it might be a good idea to anneal the case necks? I’ve read a couple of reports of cracks or splits in the necks after a couple of reloadings, which makes me think it might be a good idea. Especially since, with cast-bullet loads, you have to bell the case mouth a bit.
Speaking of cast, I think a while back I wrote that the mold I got for .303 and 7.62x54r throws a 160-grain bullet; it’s actually listed as a 185-grain, but the sized, gas-checked and lubed bullets weigh just a fraction over 180 according to my scale. If I do decide to try a heavier bullet for the M1, I may just use this bullet sized to .310 or .311 and a suitable powder.
I have to say, having used several Lee molds, I like them. They do tend to be a bit more temperature-sensitive, as in cooling off faster due to the aluminum bodies; they also cost anywhere from $30-50 less than all the cast-iron, steel or bronze molds I’ve seen. I’ve got some Lyman molds, and I’ve got no problem with them, they are very well-made and throw good bullets; but if I can find the same bullet, or very close, in Lee I’m likely to try it first, since saving forty bucks isn’t something to sneeze at.
Further speaking of cast, I’ve got a friend who used to do a bunch of jewelry work. If he can get his centrifuge and oven set up, we’re going to see about making some silver bullets. No, I don’t expect to have a werecritter or vampire show up, but considering some of the things in DC right now… and I can always use them for gifts: “Here, you now have a box of REAL silvertips.” There was a thread on this at High Road a while back, discussing what accuracy would be like since silver is so much lighter than lead. I’d use very damn few to test; I haven’t looked lately, but if gold is any indication the price of silver has probably jumped considerably.
Ok, I just looked(don't you love the internet?), it's currently trading at $11.32 per ounce. Not too bad.
I didn't post on it the other day, but President What did I sign? Obama's good friend Bill Ayers was turned back at the Canadian border. While I'm glad Canada had the good sense and standard to prevent his entry... what, you couldn't let him in and arrange an accident with a moose or something?
In other news, I’d been looking around for 7.62x54r brass for a while. About six or eight months ago I’d bought 100 rounds of Wolf Gold(good ammo) both to try it out, and because that would give me some reloadable cases; at that time all I could find was Norma or Lapua which is, let’s say ‘pricey’. Later on I found that Graf & Sons carries Prvi brass, but they’ve been out of stock for at least the last two months, and the only other place I found that had affordable brass(Winchester) was also out of stock.
Yesterday I went to Grafs to check, clicked on ‘7.62x54r’, and the little note said “In stock”. I think I actually jumped a bit. Yes, I ordered some, right then; no telling how long it’ll last.
I think Prvi makes the brass- maybe the ammo- for Wolf Gold; they look identical and have the same headstamp; somebody told me they may also make the stuff sold under the Hotshot label. It’s good stuff, but does seem a bit stiff in the neck; it’s definitely good quality, but I’m wondering if, after one or two uses, it might be a good idea to anneal the case necks? I’ve read a couple of reports of cracks or splits in the necks after a couple of reloadings, which makes me think it might be a good idea. Especially since, with cast-bullet loads, you have to bell the case mouth a bit.
Speaking of cast, I think a while back I wrote that the mold I got for .303 and 7.62x54r throws a 160-grain bullet; it’s actually listed as a 185-grain, but the sized, gas-checked and lubed bullets weigh just a fraction over 180 according to my scale. If I do decide to try a heavier bullet for the M1, I may just use this bullet sized to .310 or .311 and a suitable powder.
I have to say, having used several Lee molds, I like them. They do tend to be a bit more temperature-sensitive, as in cooling off faster due to the aluminum bodies; they also cost anywhere from $30-50 less than all the cast-iron, steel or bronze molds I’ve seen. I’ve got some Lyman molds, and I’ve got no problem with them, they are very well-made and throw good bullets; but if I can find the same bullet, or very close, in Lee I’m likely to try it first, since saving forty bucks isn’t something to sneeze at.
Further speaking of cast, I’ve got a friend who used to do a bunch of jewelry work. If he can get his centrifuge and oven set up, we’re going to see about making some silver bullets. No, I don’t expect to have a werecritter or vampire show up, but considering some of the things in DC right now… and I can always use them for gifts: “Here, you now have a box of REAL silvertips.” There was a thread on this at High Road a while back, discussing what accuracy would be like since silver is so much lighter than lead. I’d use very damn few to test; I haven’t looked lately, but if gold is any indication the price of silver has probably jumped considerably.
Ok, I just looked(don't you love the internet?), it's currently trading at $11.32 per ounce. Not too bad.
I didn't post on it the other day, but President What did I sign? Obama's good friend Bill Ayers was turned back at the Canadian border. While I'm glad Canada had the good sense and standard to prevent his entry... what, you couldn't let him in and arrange an accident with a moose or something?
Warning: delayed post with irritation and some bad language
This is just a flat disgusting day. Unless enough people in the Senate develop enough courage to stand on that odd thing called ‘principle’(I KNOW they’ve heard of it, though it’s probably rather strange to them), or have enough people yelling at them to get their attention, we’ll have a confessed/proven tax cheat in charge of the Treasury Department. And President Hopeychangeypants has signed an executive order to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. Because terrorists and murderers captured on the battlefield should get a trial under the same standards as a bank robber or mugger, or most tax cheats except those nominated to high office by President The Obama.
If anyone on Pennsylvania reads this, what the hell is wrong with you people? Not only did Murtha crap on the Marines and try to help us lose the war, he called the people in his district racists and you STILL sent him back to DC. Where he said he’d have no problem with the dirtbags(he probably identifies with them) from Guantanamo being sent to his district. And I hope that’s exactly what happens. You voted this asshole back into office, you get the terrorists in your back yard. Deal with it.
And we have all the supposed ‘Republicans’ sucking up to Obama by falling all over themselves to approve anybody he appoints, because actually doing what they’re supposed to do is just too nasty and 'partisan' for them; it would also require courage and integrity, which seems to be in damn short supply in DC.
I was listening to Glenn Beck this morning, and he had some comment about “What are you going to do about this?” Well, I’m like a lot of people; I’ve been yelling at the people in the House and Senate for all I’m worth, and on some very damned important things they do just what they do to everyone else: they ignore me. My Rep. is Mary Fallin, my senators are Coburn and Inhofe. On the Pork, Payoffs and Bribes Bailout Bill, Fallin voted against it in the House. Then the Senate put together that abortion of an end run around the Constitution, and I got a split; Inhofe voted no, Coburn yes. And then it went back to the House, and Fallin changed her vote to yes. Despite both admitting people contacting them were saying “NO!” by 9-to-1. And I immediately wrote to both of them(again) and basically asked “Why the hell did you do this?” And the answer from both, when I got it was pretty much the same: “Well, we had to do SOMETHING!” So I asked both why ‘something had to include all the pork and payoffs and bribes, that if this was indeed so vital and important couldn’t this crap have been stripped out? Answer: “Under the circumstances bla-blah-blah it was something that had to be done, and I’m sorry if you think I did wrong.”
I’m STILL pissed about that mess. When I read those justifications, if there’d been a way to throw both of them out of office RIGHT THEN, and replace them with Security Staff(House) and my daughter’s ferret(Senate), I’d have done it. And you know what makes this crap even worse? Those two are STILL better and at least 80% of the clowns and thieves and general scumbags in Congress. Which means the ‘lamppost & rope’ option just keeps looking better and better.
I’ve got a radio on, and just heard some of the questions that a bunch of major media ‘journalists’ are asking about The Anointed One, President Obama: “Does he think deficits are bad? Does he think Afghanistan can be won? Does he think- Does he believe?” on and bloody on. All questions that these slimy little excuses for reporters should have asked, and demanded answers to, at least a year ago(along with a bunch of others). But no, they had to take it easy on Obama, they just couldn’t bring themselves to treat him like a politician(God- the one they don’t believe in- forbid they actually question him like he was a member of the Stupid Party), they had to help him out in every way they could. And NOW, these bastards are sitting around with wondering expressions on their faces and asking “What does he actually think?” And they actually think we should trust them to bring us the ‘news’.
Aw, jeez… I just heard the recording of Obama announcing his executive orders. He gave the spiel about ‘for security and justice we’re closing the detention facility blah blah,”, then he actually had to ask one of his flunkies “Do we have another order about what we’re going to do with the detainees?” This jackass is signing this crap, and he doesn’t even know how many he’s signed? And what each covers? Some Evil Party speaker named Beckel(sp?) just chuckled and said something like “I imagine there’ll be some discussion and some heads will roll, I doubt this will happen again.” WHAT won’t happen again? The Anointed One not knowing what he just signed? Who’s going to get blamed for that so as not to smudge the halo over His Head? Damn, what a bunch of shit. And this is what’s in the White House. And the lawyer he’s asking “What did I just sign?” is another Clinton holdover.
And, of course, the Senate didn’t actually ask Hillary Clinton any real questions about the foreign money or anything else, in part because that jackass McCain was giving speeches that in the ‘spirit of bipartisanship’, i.e. ‘give the Evil Party what they want’, they just HAD to pass her on. Arizona, after 9/11 you should have said to hell with it and gone ahead with the recall on that bastard.
Shit. Rush just played two sound bites from Evil Party politicians on the ‘stimulus package’ infrastructure spending. Didn’t catch the first clowns name ,but the second was Chief House Tax Cheat Rangel. Both of them saying “We need quotas to make sure this money for construction doesn’t go to white construction companies, we need to make sure a lot of this goes to minorities and women.” Gee, and here I thought building a fucking bridge should be done by the most qualified company that makes the best bid; how silly of me not to know that the color and sex of who owns the company is far more important than competence.
Yes, except for Security Staff being better, this day mostly sucks.
If anyone on Pennsylvania reads this, what the hell is wrong with you people? Not only did Murtha crap on the Marines and try to help us lose the war, he called the people in his district racists and you STILL sent him back to DC. Where he said he’d have no problem with the dirtbags(he probably identifies with them) from Guantanamo being sent to his district. And I hope that’s exactly what happens. You voted this asshole back into office, you get the terrorists in your back yard. Deal with it.
And we have all the supposed ‘Republicans’ sucking up to Obama by falling all over themselves to approve anybody he appoints, because actually doing what they’re supposed to do is just too nasty and 'partisan' for them; it would also require courage and integrity, which seems to be in damn short supply in DC.
I was listening to Glenn Beck this morning, and he had some comment about “What are you going to do about this?” Well, I’m like a lot of people; I’ve been yelling at the people in the House and Senate for all I’m worth, and on some very damned important things they do just what they do to everyone else: they ignore me. My Rep. is Mary Fallin, my senators are Coburn and Inhofe. On the Pork, Payoffs and Bribes Bailout Bill, Fallin voted against it in the House. Then the Senate put together that abortion of an end run around the Constitution, and I got a split; Inhofe voted no, Coburn yes. And then it went back to the House, and Fallin changed her vote to yes. Despite both admitting people contacting them were saying “NO!” by 9-to-1. And I immediately wrote to both of them(again) and basically asked “Why the hell did you do this?” And the answer from both, when I got it was pretty much the same: “Well, we had to do SOMETHING!” So I asked both why ‘something had to include all the pork and payoffs and bribes, that if this was indeed so vital and important couldn’t this crap have been stripped out? Answer: “Under the circumstances bla-blah-blah it was something that had to be done, and I’m sorry if you think I did wrong.”
I’m STILL pissed about that mess. When I read those justifications, if there’d been a way to throw both of them out of office RIGHT THEN, and replace them with Security Staff(House) and my daughter’s ferret(Senate), I’d have done it. And you know what makes this crap even worse? Those two are STILL better and at least 80% of the clowns and thieves and general scumbags in Congress. Which means the ‘lamppost & rope’ option just keeps looking better and better.
I’ve got a radio on, and just heard some of the questions that a bunch of major media ‘journalists’ are asking about The Anointed One, President Obama: “Does he think deficits are bad? Does he think Afghanistan can be won? Does he think- Does he believe?” on and bloody on. All questions that these slimy little excuses for reporters should have asked, and demanded answers to, at least a year ago(along with a bunch of others). But no, they had to take it easy on Obama, they just couldn’t bring themselves to treat him like a politician(God- the one they don’t believe in- forbid they actually question him like he was a member of the Stupid Party), they had to help him out in every way they could. And NOW, these bastards are sitting around with wondering expressions on their faces and asking “What does he actually think?” And they actually think we should trust them to bring us the ‘news’.
Aw, jeez… I just heard the recording of Obama announcing his executive orders. He gave the spiel about ‘for security and justice we’re closing the detention facility blah blah,”, then he actually had to ask one of his flunkies “Do we have another order about what we’re going to do with the detainees?” This jackass is signing this crap, and he doesn’t even know how many he’s signed? And what each covers? Some Evil Party speaker named Beckel(sp?) just chuckled and said something like “I imagine there’ll be some discussion and some heads will roll, I doubt this will happen again.” WHAT won’t happen again? The Anointed One not knowing what he just signed? Who’s going to get blamed for that so as not to smudge the halo over His Head? Damn, what a bunch of shit. And this is what’s in the White House. And the lawyer he’s asking “What did I just sign?” is another Clinton holdover.
And, of course, the Senate didn’t actually ask Hillary Clinton any real questions about the foreign money or anything else, in part because that jackass McCain was giving speeches that in the ‘spirit of bipartisanship’, i.e. ‘give the Evil Party what they want’, they just HAD to pass her on. Arizona, after 9/11 you should have said to hell with it and gone ahead with the recall on that bastard.
Shit. Rush just played two sound bites from Evil Party politicians on the ‘stimulus package’ infrastructure spending. Didn’t catch the first clowns name ,but the second was Chief House Tax Cheat Rangel. Both of them saying “We need quotas to make sure this money for construction doesn’t go to white construction companies, we need to make sure a lot of this goes to minorities and women.” Gee, and here I thought building a fucking bridge should be done by the most qualified company that makes the best bid; how silly of me not to know that the color and sex of who owns the company is far more important than competence.
Yes, except for Security Staff being better, this day mostly sucks.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I'll borrow some words to the 'celebrities' who now say
'forgive and forget' and 'we're ALL Americans now!':
Screw you.
Every damn one of you who did everything you could for the last eight years to make things as difficult as possible for this country to survive, and to triumph in the war. Who pissed on the flag, on the troops, and on anyone who didn't share your PC-at-any-cost beliefs.
Screw you.
Every damn one of you who did everything you could for the last eight years to make things as difficult as possible for this country to survive, and to triumph in the war. Who pissed on the flag, on the troops, and on anyone who didn't share your PC-at-any-cost beliefs.
What, a law that someone didn't think through the consequences of?
Whoda thunk it?
"CPSC does not want to take books away from kids. We want to encourage reading but also have kids with safe products," said Scott Wolfson, of the CPSC.
The commission admitted the law is vague, especially on the issue of books. The group said it is working on specific guidelines for libraries, schools and bookstores.
Your government, at work making you safe. From everything.
"CPSC does not want to take books away from kids. We want to encourage reading but also have kids with safe products," said Scott Wolfson, of the CPSC.
The commission admitted the law is vague, especially on the issue of books. The group said it is working on specific guidelines for libraries, schools and bookstores.
Your government, at work making you safe. From everything.
No, I didn't watch the Ascension,
just like I didn't watch either of Bush 43's, or Clintons or anyone else; I generally don't watch political speeches by anyone unless there's a particular reason to. I've come to despise virtually all politicians, in particular the career ones.
I couldn't miss all the noise; the vet has a flat-screen in the waiting area and every damn channel had the mess in DC on. From what I've been reading, about what I expected:
Not nearly as many as the Obama suckups were breathlessly hoping for;
At least one speech on the expected "Maybe now whites will let people of color get ahead" bullcrap,
Every weenie who got in front of a camera speaking of how they 'HAD to be here for the glorious historical event',
And the Inaugural Speech that was full of platitudes, full of "America needs to be remade!"(bite me, dumbass, no it doesn't), and managed to cause the market to drop. Again.
I do wonder what's going to happen with some major media dumbass finally decides to start action like a reporter and starts actually asking uncomfortable questions and wanting answers; will he be excommunicated? Will his fellow 'journalists' allow him to continue to live, or will he disappear into a basement? Or will some of the others, realizing how badly they've screwed the pooch on this, start actually doing something? It's going to happen eventually; if nothing else someone will decide that doing so will set them apart from the pack and get more audience.
The dog seems to be a bit better. This morning got the pill to keep her from throwing up(blood tests indicated she had been), a supplement(she may someday forgive me for making her take these two), and when I opened a can of the special food and she got a sniff, first real interest she's shown in food for two days. Gave her half, she ate it, drank, and over about a half hour showed no sign of upchucking, so gave her the other half. Currently, she's stretched out sleeping in the sun, so I'm hoping she's turned the corner.
Yes, as a matter of fact, how she's doing is far more important to me than The Obama.
I couldn't miss all the noise; the vet has a flat-screen in the waiting area and every damn channel had the mess in DC on. From what I've been reading, about what I expected:
Not nearly as many as the Obama suckups were breathlessly hoping for;
At least one speech on the expected "Maybe now whites will let people of color get ahead" bullcrap,
Every weenie who got in front of a camera speaking of how they 'HAD to be here for the glorious historical event',
And the Inaugural Speech that was full of platitudes, full of "America needs to be remade!"(bite me, dumbass, no it doesn't), and managed to cause the market to drop. Again.
I do wonder what's going to happen with some major media dumbass finally decides to start action like a reporter and starts actually asking uncomfortable questions and wanting answers; will he be excommunicated? Will his fellow 'journalists' allow him to continue to live, or will he disappear into a basement? Or will some of the others, realizing how badly they've screwed the pooch on this, start actually doing something? It's going to happen eventually; if nothing else someone will decide that doing so will set them apart from the pack and get more audience.
The dog seems to be a bit better. This morning got the pill to keep her from throwing up(blood tests indicated she had been), a supplement(she may someday forgive me for making her take these two), and when I opened a can of the special food and she got a sniff, first real interest she's shown in food for two days. Gave her half, she ate it, drank, and over about a half hour showed no sign of upchucking, so gave her the other half. Currently, she's stretched out sleeping in the sun, so I'm hoping she's turned the corner.
Yes, as a matter of fact, how she's doing is far more important to me than The Obama.
Forgot to mention, at the range Monday?
It was BUSY. People shooting and buying. LOTS of people. Nice thing to see. And a very nice mix; men, women, black, white, latino, all looking at boomsticks or shooting them(I guess the women and non-white guys hadn't heard that only white bigots like guns). One guy had a Desert Eagle in .50AE; that's one big damn pistol, and I got to fire it. The owner was a big guy, hands looked like mine when I'm wearing gloves, and he likes it; personally, once was enough.
Also, tried some of the 7.62x54r practice loads, the 180-grain Lee bullet over 16.0 grains of 2400, in a Mosin Nagant 91/30, and it shot very well. Some of these rifles are capable of fine accuracy, this one made it easy to put offhand shots into a 3" bull at 30 yards. And like almost every rifle I've tried these and similar loads in, it took the sights at 500 to put it dead-on.
Also, tried some of the 7.62x54r practice loads, the 180-grain Lee bullet over 16.0 grains of 2400, in a Mosin Nagant 91/30, and it shot very well. Some of these rifles are capable of fine accuracy, this one made it easy to put offhand shots into a 3" bull at 30 yards. And like almost every rifle I've tried these and similar loads in, it took the sights at 500 to put it dead-on.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Well, depending on what's actually the case,
this is downright interesting:
At least 40 al-Qaeda fanatics died horribly after being struck down with the disease that devastated Europe in the Middle Ages.
vs.
He said authorities in the first week of January intercepted an urgent communication between the leadership of al Qaeda in the Land of the Maghreb (AQIM) and al Qaeda's leadership in the tribal region of Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan. The communication suggested that an area sealed to prevent leakage of a biological or chemical substance had been breached, according to the official.
"We don't know if this is biological or chemical," the official said.
If this was bubonic plague, some of the comments point out that it's treatable with antibiotics and fairly easily cured, which makes it not a very good weapon. For death, that's so; for scaring hell out of people and overloading medical facilities, it'd do quite well. Face it, if they could turn a bunch of infected fleas loose in an area and a bunch of people broke with it, there's be mass panic, and not just in the city/cities where it happened.
And it's possible they were trying for/hoping for pneumonic plague, which is a really nasty beast. Or, it could have been something else entirely. Maybe we'll find out someday.
At least 40 al-Qaeda fanatics died horribly after being struck down with the disease that devastated Europe in the Middle Ages.
vs.
He said authorities in the first week of January intercepted an urgent communication between the leadership of al Qaeda in the Land of the Maghreb (AQIM) and al Qaeda's leadership in the tribal region of Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan. The communication suggested that an area sealed to prevent leakage of a biological or chemical substance had been breached, according to the official.
"We don't know if this is biological or chemical," the official said.
If this was bubonic plague, some of the comments point out that it's treatable with antibiotics and fairly easily cured, which makes it not a very good weapon. For death, that's so; for scaring hell out of people and overloading medical facilities, it'd do quite well. Face it, if they could turn a bunch of infected fleas loose in an area and a bunch of people broke with it, there's be mass panic, and not just in the city/cities where it happened.
And it's possible they were trying for/hoping for pneumonic plague, which is a really nasty beast. Or, it could have been something else entirely. Maybe we'll find out someday.
What I find most interesting about this story
is some of the locations:
Eyewitnesses said that Hamas militiamen had turned a number of hospitals and schools into temporary detention centers where dozens of Fatah members and supporters were being held on suspicion of helping Israel during the war.
The eyewitnesses said that a children's hospital and a mental health center in Gaza City, as well as a number of school buildings in Khan Yunis and Rafah, were among the places that Hamas had turned into "torture centers."
Schools and hospitals: not just for mortar and rocket sites anymore!
Eyewitnesses said that Hamas militiamen had turned a number of hospitals and schools into temporary detention centers where dozens of Fatah members and supporters were being held on suspicion of helping Israel during the war.
The eyewitnesses said that a children's hospital and a mental health center in Gaza City, as well as a number of school buildings in Khan Yunis and Rafah, were among the places that Hamas had turned into "torture centers."
Schools and hospitals: not just for mortar and rocket sites anymore!
Well, this has been a fun morning
The dog's sick, so that means a trip to the vet. And when I went out to load her up, found that some slimeball had broken the back window of the truck.
According to the people at the glass shop, they'd done 20 vehicle windows so far, and a number of business windows, with more lined up. Some days, seems like it'd be worth it to spend a night in the bushes with a shotgun.
According to the people at the glass shop, they'd done 20 vehicle windows so far, and a number of business windows, with more lined up. Some days, seems like it'd be worth it to spend a night in the bushes with a shotgun.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Range report: M1 Garand and cast bullets
I'd wondered for a while about working up a cast-bullet load for the M1 for practice. If I could, it'd be cheaper than buying jacketed(assuming acceptable accuracy and no nasty fouling problems) and I'd be able to use the same kind of light practice loads I do in the bolt rifles. So I dug around at High Road and Cast Boolits and found some good information(especially at CB).
The thing you have to watch with the M1 is not just chamber pressure, but the pressure at the gas port near the muzzle; too low pressure won't cycle the action*, too high can damage the operating rod. Which is a Bad Thing. And you can't use the same load information with cast as you do jacketed bullets; a powder that's too slow-burning to safely use with jacketed bullets can be quite acceptable with cast.
I had one other criteria: I've already got a mold for the 150-grain gas-check bullet I use for several cartridges, andbeing a cheap bastardwanted to see if it would work before buying another mold.
DISCLAIMER: You know the drill: the loads I'm about to list worked in my rifle; they might not in yours. If you decide to try these or similar loads it's at your own risk. Do some research before you decide to follow in my tracks, as I'd hate to year of someone damaging a fine rifle(or their face).
Looking over the information, I decided to go with one guy's procedure: start with 34.0 grains of IMR4895, step up in 1.0 grain increments until you have a load that cycles the action reliably. So I loaded five rounds with 34.0, five with 35.0, five with 36.0. Five because I've got one of the five-round clips, and only 15 total because I didn't know if this bullet would work; a lot of people have said their rifle didn't work well with cast unless using a heavier bullet(and often a slower-burning powder).
Being somewhat short on time, plus it being chilly enough to be a bit uncomfortable(if you read this, Tam: yes, sometimes I am a wuss, my hands get stiff), I went to H&H. So, 30 yard rifle range, and light a bit dim, here's 34.0 grains:
35.0 grains
and 36.0:
The first round of the 34.0 ejected the empty but didn't move the bolt back quite far enough to pick up the next round; all the rest cycled with no problem, and all the 35 and 36-grain loads cycled properly. The first two dropped the cases about two feet to the right; the 36 load ejected forward and a touch to the left. The 35.0 load seems to have grouped a bit tighter than the others, but without a solid rest this is within my margin of error, I may have held a bit better on that group; I think not, but possible. But I think I'll start with the 35.0 for the next testing, which will hopefully be at 50 and 100 yards with a solid bench.
Oh, the reason the 36.0 load is higher is I raised the rear sight four clicks; I think they'd require about eight to ten clicks to put it on at 50, which if this runs like the other cast loads should also put it on at 100. We'll see. I'll be able to set up the Chrony and find out velocity, too.
Assuming accuracy holds up at the longer ranges, this should work nicely: recoil was very light, the loads used almost ten grains less powder than milspec ball loads, and accuracy(assuming) should be quite enough for general practice.
I'll mention one other thing: the possibility of lead fouling the gas port or cylinder. I think this would mostly be a problem with a plain-base bullet either driven too fast or cast of too-soft alloy; with a hard-cast and/or gas-checked bullet, little or no problem was reported. I took my rifle down and checked it, and while fifteen rounds isn't a really good test, I only found what looked like one little speck of lead on the face of the op-rod, and it wiped right off. So I don't think that'll be a problem. I've fired a bunch of gas-checked cast bullets in the Carbine with no problem**, so I don't think it'll be one here. Overall, a quite successful test.
*Some people use what seems to be the 'use this' cast-bullet target load, 16.0 grains of 2400 with a 150-170-grain bullet; it won't cycle the action, but reports say it gives good accuracy and hand-cycling drops the brass close by.
**A while back I thought the gas piston seemed a touch sticky, so I took it out; it had what might have been some fouling buildup, but I've been told that can happen over time from lead burning off the exposed base of the standard bullet, too. And since I'd never taken the piston out before, no idea if there'd been some buildup before.
The thing you have to watch with the M1 is not just chamber pressure, but the pressure at the gas port near the muzzle; too low pressure won't cycle the action*, too high can damage the operating rod. Which is a Bad Thing. And you can't use the same load information with cast as you do jacketed bullets; a powder that's too slow-burning to safely use with jacketed bullets can be quite acceptable with cast.
I had one other criteria: I've already got a mold for the 150-grain gas-check bullet I use for several cartridges, and
DISCLAIMER: You know the drill: the loads I'm about to list worked in my rifle; they might not in yours. If you decide to try these or similar loads it's at your own risk. Do some research before you decide to follow in my tracks, as I'd hate to year of someone damaging a fine rifle(or their face).
Looking over the information, I decided to go with one guy's procedure: start with 34.0 grains of IMR4895, step up in 1.0 grain increments until you have a load that cycles the action reliably. So I loaded five rounds with 34.0, five with 35.0, five with 36.0. Five because I've got one of the five-round clips, and only 15 total because I didn't know if this bullet would work; a lot of people have said their rifle didn't work well with cast unless using a heavier bullet(and often a slower-burning powder).
Being somewhat short on time, plus it being chilly enough to be a bit uncomfortable(if you read this, Tam: yes, sometimes I am a wuss, my hands get stiff), I went to H&H. So, 30 yard rifle range, and light a bit dim, here's 34.0 grains:
35.0 grains
and 36.0:
The first round of the 34.0 ejected the empty but didn't move the bolt back quite far enough to pick up the next round; all the rest cycled with no problem, and all the 35 and 36-grain loads cycled properly. The first two dropped the cases about two feet to the right; the 36 load ejected forward and a touch to the left. The 35.0 load seems to have grouped a bit tighter than the others, but without a solid rest this is within my margin of error, I may have held a bit better on that group; I think not, but possible. But I think I'll start with the 35.0 for the next testing, which will hopefully be at 50 and 100 yards with a solid bench.Oh, the reason the 36.0 load is higher is I raised the rear sight four clicks; I think they'd require about eight to ten clicks to put it on at 50, which if this runs like the other cast loads should also put it on at 100. We'll see. I'll be able to set up the Chrony and find out velocity, too.
Assuming accuracy holds up at the longer ranges, this should work nicely: recoil was very light, the loads used almost ten grains less powder than milspec ball loads, and accuracy(assuming) should be quite enough for general practice.
I'll mention one other thing: the possibility of lead fouling the gas port or cylinder. I think this would mostly be a problem with a plain-base bullet either driven too fast or cast of too-soft alloy; with a hard-cast and/or gas-checked bullet, little or no problem was reported. I took my rifle down and checked it, and while fifteen rounds isn't a really good test, I only found what looked like one little speck of lead on the face of the op-rod, and it wiped right off. So I don't think that'll be a problem. I've fired a bunch of gas-checked cast bullets in the Carbine with no problem**, so I don't think it'll be one here. Overall, a quite successful test.
*Some people use what seems to be the 'use this' cast-bullet target load, 16.0 grains of 2400 with a 150-170-grain bullet; it won't cycle the action, but reports say it gives good accuracy and hand-cycling drops the brass close by.
**A while back I thought the gas piston seemed a touch sticky, so I took it out; it had what might have been some fouling buildup, but I've been told that can happen over time from lead burning off the exposed base of the standard bullet, too. And since I'd never taken the piston out before, no idea if there'd been some buildup before.
"But the government would never actually BAN guns"
Got this comment on the 'mind of an Only One' post:
Do you really think there's any possibility that the federal government will one day want to confiscate your guns? I definitely do not. I think this discussion is used by you and your friends to aggrandize your situation by painting a picture of yourselves fearlessly fighting against incredible odds, all for your principles.
What is likely is that there will be some increase in gun control laws because many people believe as I do that the greater the availability of guns there is the more problems we have as a result.
Well, no, I don't think it's a 'possibility'; I think it's a reality. I think that because a bunch of politicians and activists have said flat-out that that is their intention.
Diane Feinstein stated that if she thought she could get the votes in the Senate, she'd pass a bill ordering the ban of ownership of all handguns. She also, when mayor of San Francisco, pushed a total ban on handgun ownership.
Sen. John Chafee: I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!
Rep. Major Owens: Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind. (Don't you just love being one of 'that kind'?)
Rep. William Clay said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.
Mayor Barbara Fass of Stockton, CA: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.
Michael Gartner, when president of CBS News: There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.
I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.
I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.
Barack Obama, about to be sworn in as President, has in the past called for
a ban on all handguns,
a ban on all semi-auto firearms,
a national ban on concealed carry.
You want a list of his various ban/restriction words and actions, look here.
Charles T. Morgan, at the time Director of the Washington office of the ACLU said in Senate testimony in 1975 when asked about gun registration:
What the administation's and Congressman McClory's bills . . . call for is a whole new set of Federal records. . . .
I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.
These notes are from this article at GOA:
In 1989, New Jersey State Senator Frank Graves introduced a bill which defined an assault weapon as any rifle or semi-automatic shotgun with a magazine capacity of 7 or more rounds or any semi-automatic handgun of 18 or more rounds. Any firearm which uses a detachable magazine technically has a "magazine capacity" of these large sounding numbers because it can accept a magazine of any capacity that fits that firearm. (Please note that in New Jersey, a Marlin Model 60 .22 is considered an 'assault weapon' and banned because it can hold 17 rounds.)
In 1994, the U.S. Congress voted to ban scores of semi-automatic firearms. While the author of this ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), claimed the law would only ban 19 types of firearms, other government officials dispute this claim.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has admitted the law bans at least 45 guns. (12) And firearms experts have concluded that the law, which uses generic definitions to ban even more weapons, will actually cover more than 180 guns, thus affecting 50% of the gun owners in the country. (13)
This means that if a person fails to register a common hunting shotgun or rifle (not realizing that their gun is covered by the generic definitions in the bill) they will become a criminal and could lose their gun rights forever.
Sen. Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer have called for outright bans, though in public they more often tend to speak of 'registration' and 'limits' and they save what they really think for friendly audiences.
And the UN, which many of these people practically worship at the altar of, does NOT like the idea of peasants with arms:
* "To prevent conflict and violence from undermining development, effective disarmament programmes are vital..."
* "Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) is one precursor to the establishment of a stable and secure environment..."
* "[Small arms] are fundamentally dangerous and their removal from the equation either by control, neutralisation or removal is essential. The first step is to gain information on their numbers and whereabouts."
...
"I must … express my disappointment over the Conference’s inability to agree ... on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups." [2]
'Non-State groups' meaning anyone except military and police, i.e. the peasants. That's us.
Got news for you, guy, I'm not 'fighting fearlessly'; this scares the crap out of me. But it's a choice of being quiet and hoping to avoid notice, or making noise and trying to stop this garbage; and a bunch of us have decided to make some noise. As to your comment about 'the more guns, the more problems', I'd suggest you hop over to Smallest Minority(here's a good place to start) and browse around. Check the left sidebar, he's got links to some good ones. Or Alphecca. Hell, just check Kevin's blogroll, you can find a lot of places with a lot of information debunking the 'more guns, more crime' idea.
By the way, the 'Disarmament idiocy' category isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at the policians & fellow-travellers.
Do you really think there's any possibility that the federal government will one day want to confiscate your guns? I definitely do not. I think this discussion is used by you and your friends to aggrandize your situation by painting a picture of yourselves fearlessly fighting against incredible odds, all for your principles.
What is likely is that there will be some increase in gun control laws because many people believe as I do that the greater the availability of guns there is the more problems we have as a result.
Well, no, I don't think it's a 'possibility'; I think it's a reality. I think that because a bunch of politicians and activists have said flat-out that that is their intention.
Diane Feinstein stated that if she thought she could get the votes in the Senate, she'd pass a bill ordering the ban of ownership of all handguns. She also, when mayor of San Francisco, pushed a total ban on handgun ownership.
Sen. John Chafee: I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!
Rep. Major Owens: Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind. (Don't you just love being one of 'that kind'?)
Rep. William Clay said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.
Mayor Barbara Fass of Stockton, CA: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.
Michael Gartner, when president of CBS News: There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.
I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.
I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.
Barack Obama, about to be sworn in as President, has in the past called for
a ban on all handguns,
a ban on all semi-auto firearms,
a national ban on concealed carry.
You want a list of his various ban/restriction words and actions, look here.
Charles T. Morgan, at the time Director of the Washington office of the ACLU said in Senate testimony in 1975 when asked about gun registration:
What the administation's and Congressman McClory's bills . . . call for is a whole new set of Federal records. . . .
I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.
These notes are from this article at GOA:
In 1989, New Jersey State Senator Frank Graves introduced a bill which defined an assault weapon as any rifle or semi-automatic shotgun with a magazine capacity of 7 or more rounds or any semi-automatic handgun of 18 or more rounds. Any firearm which uses a detachable magazine technically has a "magazine capacity" of these large sounding numbers because it can accept a magazine of any capacity that fits that firearm. (Please note that in New Jersey, a Marlin Model 60 .22 is considered an 'assault weapon' and banned because it can hold 17 rounds.)
In 1994, the U.S. Congress voted to ban scores of semi-automatic firearms. While the author of this ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), claimed the law would only ban 19 types of firearms, other government officials dispute this claim.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has admitted the law bans at least 45 guns. (12) And firearms experts have concluded that the law, which uses generic definitions to ban even more weapons, will actually cover more than 180 guns, thus affecting 50% of the gun owners in the country. (13)
This means that if a person fails to register a common hunting shotgun or rifle (not realizing that their gun is covered by the generic definitions in the bill) they will become a criminal and could lose their gun rights forever.
Sen. Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer have called for outright bans, though in public they more often tend to speak of 'registration' and 'limits' and they save what they really think for friendly audiences.
And the UN, which many of these people practically worship at the altar of, does NOT like the idea of peasants with arms:
* "To prevent conflict and violence from undermining development, effective disarmament programmes are vital..."
* "Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) is one precursor to the establishment of a stable and secure environment..."
* "[Small arms] are fundamentally dangerous and their removal from the equation either by control, neutralisation or removal is essential. The first step is to gain information on their numbers and whereabouts."
...
"I must … express my disappointment over the Conference’s inability to agree ... on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups." [2]
'Non-State groups' meaning anyone except military and police, i.e. the peasants. That's us.
Got news for you, guy, I'm not 'fighting fearlessly'; this scares the crap out of me. But it's a choice of being quiet and hoping to avoid notice, or making noise and trying to stop this garbage; and a bunch of us have decided to make some noise. As to your comment about 'the more guns, the more problems', I'd suggest you hop over to Smallest Minority(here's a good place to start) and browse around. Check the left sidebar, he's got links to some good ones. Or Alphecca. Hell, just check Kevin's blogroll, you can find a lot of places with a lot of information debunking the 'more guns, more crime' idea.
By the way, the 'Disarmament idiocy' category isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at the policians & fellow-travellers.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
'A world without guns' would be a very scary place,
but the fact some people think you could do it is even scarier.
Perhaps a global prohibition law isn't good enough. Maybe imposing the harshest penalty possible for violation of such a law will give it real teeth: mandatory life in prison for possession of a gun, or even for possession of a single bullet. (We won't imagine the death penalty, since the Yoko crowd doesn't like the death penalty.)
On second thought, Jamaica's Gun Court Act of 1974 contained just such a penalty, and even that wasn't sufficient. On August 18, 2001, Jamaican Melville Cooke observed that today, "the only people who do not have an illegal firearm [in this country], are those who do not want one." Violent crime in Jamaica is worse than ever, as gangsters and trigger-happy police commit homicides with impunity, and only the law-abiding are disarmed.
And that doesn't even count workshops:
Just take the case of Bougainville, the largest island in the South Pacific's Solomon Islands chain. Bougainville was the site of a bloody, decade-long secessionist uprising against domination by the government of Papua New Guinea, aided and abetted by the Australian government. The conflict there was the longest-running confrontation in the Pacific since the end of World War II, and caused the deaths of 15,000 to 20,000 islanders.
During the hostilities, which included a military blockade of the island, one of the goals was to deprive the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) of its supply of arms. The tactic failed: the BRA simply learned how to make its own guns using materiel and ammunition left over from the War.
In fact, at the United Nations Asia Pacific Regional Disarmament Conference held in Spring 2001, it was quietly admitted that the BRA, within ten years of its formation, had managed to manufacture a production copy of the M16 automatic rifle and other machine guns. (That makes one question the real intent behind the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which followed several months later: the U.N. leadership can't be so daft as to fail to recognize the implications for world disarmament after learning of the success of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army.)
If they can, what could someone like Og, or any good machinist, turn out? Uh-oh, have to license milling machines and drill presses and lathes and tubing suitable for barrels and constant surveillance of what goes in and what goes out to make sure all steel's accounted for... which ain't gonna work, either.
Good article, which I hadn't seen before. Read it all.
Perhaps a global prohibition law isn't good enough. Maybe imposing the harshest penalty possible for violation of such a law will give it real teeth: mandatory life in prison for possession of a gun, or even for possession of a single bullet. (We won't imagine the death penalty, since the Yoko crowd doesn't like the death penalty.)
On second thought, Jamaica's Gun Court Act of 1974 contained just such a penalty, and even that wasn't sufficient. On August 18, 2001, Jamaican Melville Cooke observed that today, "the only people who do not have an illegal firearm [in this country], are those who do not want one." Violent crime in Jamaica is worse than ever, as gangsters and trigger-happy police commit homicides with impunity, and only the law-abiding are disarmed.
And that doesn't even count workshops:
Just take the case of Bougainville, the largest island in the South Pacific's Solomon Islands chain. Bougainville was the site of a bloody, decade-long secessionist uprising against domination by the government of Papua New Guinea, aided and abetted by the Australian government. The conflict there was the longest-running confrontation in the Pacific since the end of World War II, and caused the deaths of 15,000 to 20,000 islanders.
During the hostilities, which included a military blockade of the island, one of the goals was to deprive the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) of its supply of arms. The tactic failed: the BRA simply learned how to make its own guns using materiel and ammunition left over from the War.
In fact, at the United Nations Asia Pacific Regional Disarmament Conference held in Spring 2001, it was quietly admitted that the BRA, within ten years of its formation, had managed to manufacture a production copy of the M16 automatic rifle and other machine guns. (That makes one question the real intent behind the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which followed several months later: the U.N. leadership can't be so daft as to fail to recognize the implications for world disarmament after learning of the success of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army.)
If they can, what could someone like Og, or any good machinist, turn out? Uh-oh, have to license milling machines and drill presses and lathes and tubing suitable for barrels and constant surveillance of what goes in and what goes out to make sure all steel's accounted for... which ain't gonna work, either.
Good article, which I hadn't seen before. Read it all.
A profoundly uncomfortable conclusion
I’ve had this bouncing around my mind for a while, and after the previous post decided to put it down.
We know there are a lot of politicians who, no matter whether they personally have any like or dislike for firearms(or other arms, for that matter) like the idea of licensing/restricting/banning them, purely for purposes of control(thought they’d call it “For the public safety”). And we know there are far too many people in LE who’d have no real problem taking an illegal order to confiscate arms(either because they like the idea or they’re more worried about trouble with the brass than the legality/right or wrong of it). So the question is this:
Do you think there are politicians, on any level, who would force such an action in the hopes of causing an incident, so they’d have a bloody shirt to wave and call for a total ban?
I’ve been thinking about it the past while, and I’ve come to the very depressing conclusion that the answer is ‘yes’.
We’ve known all along, from their actions and words, that many politicians and ban-the-guns groups like the Bradys will happily dance in the blood of crime victims so they can call for such legislation. After thinking of these actions, and the urge many seem to hold to control every aspect of everyone’s lives, I think some of them would. Would Obama? Possibly; however, he’s quite likely to take the advice of(possibly orders from?) his handlers in the House & Senate, and people like Ayers. Hell we know Ayers & Co. would like to see bloodshed, they want it. Add to that the past actions of many of these career politicians…
And there’s far too many bureaucrats in positions of power in federal agencies who, if they didn’t actually work to cause such, might not do anything to avoid or prevent one; it would give them a nice trampoline to bounce on as they scream about ‘evil gun nuts’ that need to be disarmed, who killed those dedicated LE officers/Federal Agents just because they kicked in the doors in the night or in plain clothes attacked them, and by the way we need a BIG boost in our budget to deal with this so how ‘bout it?
I really, really hate this, but yes. I believe there are politicians who would be willing to, a couple might be actually eager to, take actions to cause a violent incident so they could use it to their advantage.
Do you have any idea how depressing it is to come to that conclusion?
We know there are a lot of politicians who, no matter whether they personally have any like or dislike for firearms(or other arms, for that matter) like the idea of licensing/restricting/banning them, purely for purposes of control(thought they’d call it “For the public safety”). And we know there are far too many people in LE who’d have no real problem taking an illegal order to confiscate arms(either because they like the idea or they’re more worried about trouble with the brass than the legality/right or wrong of it). So the question is this:
Do you think there are politicians, on any level, who would force such an action in the hopes of causing an incident, so they’d have a bloody shirt to wave and call for a total ban?
I’ve been thinking about it the past while, and I’ve come to the very depressing conclusion that the answer is ‘yes’.
We’ve known all along, from their actions and words, that many politicians and ban-the-guns groups like the Bradys will happily dance in the blood of crime victims so they can call for such legislation. After thinking of these actions, and the urge many seem to hold to control every aspect of everyone’s lives, I think some of them would. Would Obama? Possibly; however, he’s quite likely to take the advice of(possibly orders from?) his handlers in the House & Senate, and people like Ayers. Hell we know Ayers & Co. would like to see bloodshed, they want it. Add to that the past actions of many of these career politicians…
And there’s far too many bureaucrats in positions of power in federal agencies who, if they didn’t actually work to cause such, might not do anything to avoid or prevent one; it would give them a nice trampoline to bounce on as they scream about ‘evil gun nuts’ that need to be disarmed, who killed those dedicated LE officers/Federal Agents just because they kicked in the doors in the night or in plain clothes attacked them, and by the way we need a BIG boost in our budget to deal with this so how ‘bout it?
I really, really hate this, but yes. I believe there are politicians who would be willing to, a couple might be actually eager to, take actions to cause a violent incident so they could use it to their advantage.
Do you have any idea how depressing it is to come to that conclusion?
A look into the mind of an Only One and the consequences
of an 'assault weapons' ban:
"So, if the order came down to pickup all assault weapons, would you do it?" He looked off into the distance for a minute and, then said, as if to no one in particular, "Yeah, I would." And what about his fellow officers? Would they? Now he looked at me in the face. "Yeah, they would. Some of 'em wouldn't want to, but they'd obey orders rather than lose their jobs." I nodded. "But if it came to that, wouldn't you have to pick up all the guns?"
He nodded in agreement and then said, "Look, if we're in somebody's house confiscating illegal guns, if its a firearm we're taking it." And what if the guy didn't have the assault weapon they were looking for, what if he just had a shotgun or something? "At that point, I'm taking it until he can prove that he doesn't have an illegal weapon hidden somewhere."
Take a real good look at and think about that last. No legal reason to do so, but "...if its a firearm, we're taking it." And the last sentance, "...until he can prove that he doesn't have an illegal weapon hidden somewhere."
UNTIL HE CAN PROVE HE DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING. That's the mindset of all too many law enforcement people; forget that pesky oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, forget civil rights, forget that 'innocent until proven guilty' crap, "We will take your property and keep it until you prove to us you don't have something illegal." No mention of how you'd prove that negative, which means the bastards will have successfully stolen your property.
That is the kind of disgusting attitude that has caused so many to see LE personnel as the enemy, instead of as lawmen. And it's the attitude of far too many politicians, who'll see it as a good way of 'getting control of the situation', which translates to "This way we can get control of people." For our own good, of course.
And no place is safe. Here in Oklahoma City, a few months ago the police chief made the statement that 'we need to have registration of handguns and permits to buy'. He caught hell for it, but do you think he's changed his mind? If we've got these clowns here, there's not a city in the country that doesn't. And far too many will worry more about 'can I get in trouble for not following this order?' than about whether it's legal. Or right. And screw you if you get upset at it, because "You don't know what pressure we're under", etc.
Whether anyone likes it or not, whether you own all kinds of guns or just a couple of muzzleloaders or antiques, we are in this together.
"So, if the order came down to pickup all assault weapons, would you do it?" He looked off into the distance for a minute and, then said, as if to no one in particular, "Yeah, I would." And what about his fellow officers? Would they? Now he looked at me in the face. "Yeah, they would. Some of 'em wouldn't want to, but they'd obey orders rather than lose their jobs." I nodded. "But if it came to that, wouldn't you have to pick up all the guns?"
He nodded in agreement and then said, "Look, if we're in somebody's house confiscating illegal guns, if its a firearm we're taking it." And what if the guy didn't have the assault weapon they were looking for, what if he just had a shotgun or something? "At that point, I'm taking it until he can prove that he doesn't have an illegal weapon hidden somewhere."
Take a real good look at and think about that last. No legal reason to do so, but "...if its a firearm, we're taking it." And the last sentance, "...until he can prove that he doesn't have an illegal weapon hidden somewhere."
UNTIL HE CAN PROVE HE DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING. That's the mindset of all too many law enforcement people; forget that pesky oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, forget civil rights, forget that 'innocent until proven guilty' crap, "We will take your property and keep it until you prove to us you don't have something illegal." No mention of how you'd prove that negative, which means the bastards will have successfully stolen your property.
That is the kind of disgusting attitude that has caused so many to see LE personnel as the enemy, instead of as lawmen. And it's the attitude of far too many politicians, who'll see it as a good way of 'getting control of the situation', which translates to "This way we can get control of people." For our own good, of course.
And no place is safe. Here in Oklahoma City, a few months ago the police chief made the statement that 'we need to have registration of handguns and permits to buy'. He caught hell for it, but do you think he's changed his mind? If we've got these clowns here, there's not a city in the country that doesn't. And far too many will worry more about 'can I get in trouble for not following this order?' than about whether it's legal. Or right. And screw you if you get upset at it, because "You don't know what pressure we're under", etc.
Whether anyone likes it or not, whether you own all kinds of guns or just a couple of muzzleloaders or antiques, we are in this together.
Couple of thoughts on burglary and other theft
In the comments to this post, Mauser Medic had this to say:
When someone steals from another, they are by my reasoning literally stealing the finite hours of the victims life spent in a labor to acquire what was stolen. Those hours spent can never be regained, any more than one can regain the days spent recovering in a hospital after being the subject of battery. For me, significant theft should involve a significant chance of injury to or the death of the thief. They have no regard for the cost to the finite hours to others, so I see no reason to concern myself with theirs, beyond the fact of what the illogically compassionate would do to me in the courts.
which reminded me of an incident a few years back. The bar/restaurant I used to hit most weeks for open-mike night had, as you might expect, a large artsy population; it's located in the Paseo District, which is the artsy neighborhood in town. One night ran into a lady I'd met before, and during conversation it came up that most people there that night wouldn't talk to her. Why? A former boyfriend- who also hung out in the place- had asked to borrow her guitar. She'd loaned it, and about two weeks later needed it back. After not-returned calls and finally getting hold of someone, it turned out he'd pawned it; he'd actually borrowed it with the intention of doing so. And, not having the money he'd gotten, couldn't get it back. She'd filed charges, and when word got around she became somewhat of a pariah: "How could you do that? He really needed the money, and that wasn't the best way to get it but it's not like it was a family heirloom or high-dollar instrument or something."
I was, I guess the right word is 'dumbfounded'. I said "Hell with what it's worth, it's your guitar." She looked up at me and said "Thank you! You're the first one who seems to understand that! Everyone else says I should just let it go."
Maybe that attitude is why so many liberal/artsy(usually combined) types have no problem with saying a burglar shouldn't get harsh punishment, or it's a good thing for the gummint to take what you earn and give it away: they don't think your work, your time, is actually of value. Unless someone stole your song idea or something, of course, that's just horrible, but otherwise your time? The things you worked for, the money you earned? Eh, no big deal. To them.
On the subject of the mess in (fG)Britain, he had this:
Secondly, I should not be surprised to see England become the first major western nation to eventually engage in a full-fledged ethnic war since the 1940s. At some point, the middle-eastern population will think itself undefeatable, and cease to worry about consequences. That will be an interesting time for the far left, as they'll be between immigrants who regard them as inferiors, and natives regarding them as traitors.
From what Thud and others have said, I don't think it'll take much at this point. The honest people have been ripped off for decades now by government, been infantilized and violated, and seen their freedoms eroded by a Parliament and PM that seem to think "Your rights are what we say they are." Now they're seeing a slow-motion takeover by islamists speeding up and the government unable/unwilling to do anything except threaten to arrest for 'hate crimes' anyone who speaks out on it. They're pissed, and probably ready. If the islamists do something particularly disgusting and the locals act, and the government tries to deal with it by stomping on the honest people for daring to act... 'profoundly messy and ugly' may be an understatement.
When someone steals from another, they are by my reasoning literally stealing the finite hours of the victims life spent in a labor to acquire what was stolen. Those hours spent can never be regained, any more than one can regain the days spent recovering in a hospital after being the subject of battery. For me, significant theft should involve a significant chance of injury to or the death of the thief. They have no regard for the cost to the finite hours to others, so I see no reason to concern myself with theirs, beyond the fact of what the illogically compassionate would do to me in the courts.
which reminded me of an incident a few years back. The bar/restaurant I used to hit most weeks for open-mike night had, as you might expect, a large artsy population; it's located in the Paseo District, which is the artsy neighborhood in town. One night ran into a lady I'd met before, and during conversation it came up that most people there that night wouldn't talk to her. Why? A former boyfriend- who also hung out in the place- had asked to borrow her guitar. She'd loaned it, and about two weeks later needed it back. After not-returned calls and finally getting hold of someone, it turned out he'd pawned it; he'd actually borrowed it with the intention of doing so. And, not having the money he'd gotten, couldn't get it back. She'd filed charges, and when word got around she became somewhat of a pariah: "How could you do that? He really needed the money, and that wasn't the best way to get it but it's not like it was a family heirloom or high-dollar instrument or something."
I was, I guess the right word is 'dumbfounded'. I said "Hell with what it's worth, it's your guitar." She looked up at me and said "Thank you! You're the first one who seems to understand that! Everyone else says I should just let it go."
Maybe that attitude is why so many liberal/artsy(usually combined) types have no problem with saying a burglar shouldn't get harsh punishment, or it's a good thing for the gummint to take what you earn and give it away: they don't think your work, your time, is actually of value. Unless someone stole your song idea or something, of course, that's just horrible, but otherwise your time? The things you worked for, the money you earned? Eh, no big deal. To them.
On the subject of the mess in (fG)Britain, he had this:
Secondly, I should not be surprised to see England become the first major western nation to eventually engage in a full-fledged ethnic war since the 1940s. At some point, the middle-eastern population will think itself undefeatable, and cease to worry about consequences. That will be an interesting time for the far left, as they'll be between immigrants who regard them as inferiors, and natives regarding them as traitors.
From what Thud and others have said, I don't think it'll take much at this point. The honest people have been ripped off for decades now by government, been infantilized and violated, and seen their freedoms eroded by a Parliament and PM that seem to think "Your rights are what we say they are." Now they're seeing a slow-motion takeover by islamists speeding up and the government unable/unwilling to do anything except threaten to arrest for 'hate crimes' anyone who speaks out on it. They're pissed, and probably ready. If the islamists do something particularly disgusting and the locals act, and the government tries to deal with it by stomping on the honest people for daring to act... 'profoundly messy and ugly' may be an understatement.
So some officials in (fG)Britain get it;
will the government act on it, though?
In unusually emotive terms, he said: 'The principle which must be grasped is that when we speak of dwelling house burglary we are considering not only an offence against property, but also, and often more alarmingly and distressingly, an offence against the person.'
Writing just weeks after he called for tougher sentences for knife crime, Lord Judge quoted the 17th century judge Sir Edward Cooke's description of an Englishman's home as his 'safest refuge - where above all we should enjoy secure tranquillity and untroubled peace'.
The ruling observes that the declining years of elderly victims can be 'overshadowed by what sometimes becomes an ever-present, pervading fear and constant nervousness'.
Lord Judge added: 'Many warm and happy memories of bygone years can be destroyed as a direct consequence of burglary and for some indeed their home becomes something of a prison, as they barricade themselves behind the security arrangements they believe they need.'
On the loss of sentimental items, he said: 'A photograph is worth nothing, except to the person who owns it, but may be the only image left of grandparents or now-deceased parents.
'The loss or destruction of letters written in the early days of courtship may distress the widow or widower who has lost them far more than the disappearance of valuable electrical equipment.'
I have never understood the "Well, it's only burglary" and "Well, it's only property" attitude; it's your home. It's your property. Having someone come into your home, trash the place and steal your stuff isn't just theft of property, it's a violation of your home. It's a virtual rape of your peace of mind there, of seeing it as your safe place. And it should be punished harshly.
Labour initially adopted a tough stance on burglary, enacting a Tory plan in 2000 to impose minimum three-year jail terms for those convicted of a third offence, although the measure was watered down to give judges more discretion.
But since then magistrates and judges have increasingly been encouraged to hand out more community punishments, and the proportion of convicted burglars sent to jail has plunged from 51 per cent to less than 40 per cent last year - down from 14,338 offenders to just 9,237 - while the number of suspended sentences has soared.
Police recorded more than 280,000 domestic burglaries in England and Wales last year but clear-up rates are low at just 13 per cent, and a quarter of all burglars caught by police are let off with a caution.
The Home Office's recent 'policing pledge' does not expect forces to visit burglary victims promptly unless they claim to be 'distressed', and sentencing guidelines published last month urge courts to consider softer punishments for burglars who steal to fund a drug habit.
Oh, God. "Softer punishments for burglars who steal to fund a drug habit." Whether these morons understand it or not, they're encouraging this shit. At the same time they've made it a crime for you to protect yourself, your family, your home from these dirtbags. You encourage something, you get more of it; is that so damned hard to understand?
One other encouraging sign from the article:
By contrast the Lord Chief Justice recently tripled the sentence on a 16-year- old knife attacker, and said: 'Those who carry knives on the streets, and use them to wound and injure, must expect severe punishment. No ifs, no buts, no perhaps.'
They're still in that 'having a knife is an offense' mindset, which is bad; but that 'and use them to wound and injure' is a hopeful sign; punish someone for the illegal act, and stop blaming hardware for what they do.
In the comments of the post on the Brit cops being chased- actually 'pursued' would be better- by the 'peace activists', Thud said
there are police blogs in which some of the officers are shall we say..less than happy...the average brit is aching to even the score of the last 10 years and only a major effort by our defeatist govt and media elite is keeping the lid on...
That the officers had to run away from these thugs is another symptom of the 'be nice to the bad guys' attitude that wants to give addict burglars an extra break, and it's one more thing causing the good people to get more and more ready to act. Which they'll either do, or they'll go down the drain, which the country is halfway to now. One of the bad things? If the blowup had happened a few years back, it would have been a lot less nasty. At this point, if it does happen, it's going to be profoundly ugly.
And the longer it waits, the uglier it's likely to get.
In unusually emotive terms, he said: 'The principle which must be grasped is that when we speak of dwelling house burglary we are considering not only an offence against property, but also, and often more alarmingly and distressingly, an offence against the person.'
Writing just weeks after he called for tougher sentences for knife crime, Lord Judge quoted the 17th century judge Sir Edward Cooke's description of an Englishman's home as his 'safest refuge - where above all we should enjoy secure tranquillity and untroubled peace'.
The ruling observes that the declining years of elderly victims can be 'overshadowed by what sometimes becomes an ever-present, pervading fear and constant nervousness'.
Lord Judge added: 'Many warm and happy memories of bygone years can be destroyed as a direct consequence of burglary and for some indeed their home becomes something of a prison, as they barricade themselves behind the security arrangements they believe they need.'
On the loss of sentimental items, he said: 'A photograph is worth nothing, except to the person who owns it, but may be the only image left of grandparents or now-deceased parents.
'The loss or destruction of letters written in the early days of courtship may distress the widow or widower who has lost them far more than the disappearance of valuable electrical equipment.'
I have never understood the "Well, it's only burglary" and "Well, it's only property" attitude; it's your home. It's your property. Having someone come into your home, trash the place and steal your stuff isn't just theft of property, it's a violation of your home. It's a virtual rape of your peace of mind there, of seeing it as your safe place. And it should be punished harshly.
Labour initially adopted a tough stance on burglary, enacting a Tory plan in 2000 to impose minimum three-year jail terms for those convicted of a third offence, although the measure was watered down to give judges more discretion.
But since then magistrates and judges have increasingly been encouraged to hand out more community punishments, and the proportion of convicted burglars sent to jail has plunged from 51 per cent to less than 40 per cent last year - down from 14,338 offenders to just 9,237 - while the number of suspended sentences has soared.
Police recorded more than 280,000 domestic burglaries in England and Wales last year but clear-up rates are low at just 13 per cent, and a quarter of all burglars caught by police are let off with a caution.
The Home Office's recent 'policing pledge' does not expect forces to visit burglary victims promptly unless they claim to be 'distressed', and sentencing guidelines published last month urge courts to consider softer punishments for burglars who steal to fund a drug habit.
Oh, God. "Softer punishments for burglars who steal to fund a drug habit." Whether these morons understand it or not, they're encouraging this shit. At the same time they've made it a crime for you to protect yourself, your family, your home from these dirtbags. You encourage something, you get more of it; is that so damned hard to understand?
One other encouraging sign from the article:
By contrast the Lord Chief Justice recently tripled the sentence on a 16-year- old knife attacker, and said: 'Those who carry knives on the streets, and use them to wound and injure, must expect severe punishment. No ifs, no buts, no perhaps.'
They're still in that 'having a knife is an offense' mindset, which is bad; but that 'and use them to wound and injure' is a hopeful sign; punish someone for the illegal act, and stop blaming hardware for what they do.
In the comments of the post on the Brit cops being chased- actually 'pursued' would be better- by the 'peace activists', Thud said
there are police blogs in which some of the officers are shall we say..less than happy...the average brit is aching to even the score of the last 10 years and only a major effort by our defeatist govt and media elite is keeping the lid on...
That the officers had to run away from these thugs is another symptom of the 'be nice to the bad guys' attitude that wants to give addict burglars an extra break, and it's one more thing causing the good people to get more and more ready to act. Which they'll either do, or they'll go down the drain, which the country is halfway to now. One of the bad things? If the blowup had happened a few years back, it would have been a lot less nasty. At this point, if it does happen, it's going to be profoundly ugly.
And the longer it waits, the uglier it's likely to get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)